Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT00130104

Transthecal Metacarpal Block Versus Traditional Digital Block for Painful Finger Procedures in Children

The purpose of this study is to determine if the transthecal metacarpal block is superior to the traditional digital block for regional digital anesthesia in children.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

Up to 18 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Phase 4

Primary location

The Children's Hospital Of Philadelphia Emergency Department

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19104, United States

About this study

Background: Finger injuries and infections are common presenting problems in the pediatric emergency department. A traditional digital block, requiring at least two injections of anesthetic, is the traditional method of regional anesthesia for many finger procedures. Digital blocks can sometimes be difficult to administer and assess for effectiveness especially in children. A newer procedure, the transthecal metacarpal block, may be easier to administer, and more effective with one injection.

Objective: To determine if the transthecal metacarpal block (MCB) provides superior digit anesthesia in children requiring painful finger procedures as compared to the traditional digital block (TDB).

Methods: A randomized clinical trial comparing the MCB to the TDB will be conducted in an urban, tertiary care pediatric emergency department. Children <18 years of age, presenting to the emergency department with a finger injury or infection, which requires regional anesthesia for repair will be screened for eligibility. Eligible patients, with appropriate consent will be randomized to receive either the MCB or TDB with 1% Lidocaine. The primary outcome, success of the block will be assessed using pinprick testing after a standardized wait time. Secondary outcomes including pain with the block and repair, repairing physician satisfaction, and short-term complications will also be assessed.

Implications: Finding successful methods of anesthesia and pain control are paramount in the pediatric emergency department. In addition, using a type of digital block which is easy to administer, successful, and requires only one injection would give physicians confidence to treat finger injuries in children with regional anesthesia and possibly avoid procedural sedation in some cases. To date, no studies have been published on the efficacy of digital blocks in children. This study will also serve to give baseline success rates for both types of digital blocks.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age <18 years
  • Greater than 10 kg in weight
  • Have finger injuries or infections that will require digital regional anesthesia
  • Require only local anesthesia for the repair
  • English speaking

Exclusion criteria

  • Have previous participation in this study
  • Need procedural sedation at the onset of the repair
  • Have allergy to lidocaine or amide-type local anesthetics
  • Have infection at the sites of block injection
  • Have known coagulopathy

Treatment and study plan

Transthecal Metacarpal Block

Procedure

Primary outcomes

  1. Success of the two types of digital blocks

    Time frame: immediate

Secondary outcomes

  1. Pain experienced with the digital block

    Time frame: immediate

  2. Repairing physician satisfaction with the procedure

    Time frame: immediate

  3. complications associated with digital block

    Time frame: 30 days

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Other

Collaborators

  • University of Pennsylvania

Registry information

Official study title

Transthecal Metacarpal Block vs Traditional Digital Block for Painful Finger Procedures in Children

Important dates

Study start
2005
Study completion
2007
First posted
Aug 15, 2005
Registry last updated
Oct 5, 2007

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.